The purpose of this article is to explore a model of learning that proposes that various learning strategies are powerful at certain stages in the learning cycle. The model describes three inputs and outcomes (skill, will and thrill), success criteria, three phases of learning (surface, deep and transfer) and an acquiring and consolidation phase within each of the surface and deep phases. A synthesis of 228 meta-analyses led to the identification of the most effective strategies. The results indicate that there is a subset of strategies that are effective, but this effectiveness depends on the phase of the model in which they are implemented. Further, it is best not to run separate sessions on learning strategies but to embed the various strategies within the content of the subject, to be clearer about developing both surface and deep learning, and promoting their associated optimal strategies and to teach the skills of transfer of learning. The article concludes with a discussion of questions raised by the model that need further research. There has been a long debate about the purpose of schooling. These debates include claims that schooling is about passing on core notions of humanity and civilisation (or at least one's own society's view of these matters). They include claims that schooling should prepare students to live pragmatically and immediately in their current environment, should prepare students for the work force, should equip students to live independently, to participate in the life of their community, to learn to 'give back', to develop personal growth. 1 In the past 30 years, however, the emphasis in many western systems of education has been more on enhancing academic achievement-in domains such as reading, mathematics, and science-as the primary purpose of schooling. 2 Such an emphasis has led to curricula being increasingly based on achievement in a few privileged domains, and 'great' students are deemed those who attain high levels of proficiency in these narrow domains.This has led to many countries aiming to be in the top echelon of worldwide achievement measures in a narrow range of subjects; for example, achievement measures such as PISA (tests of 15-year olds in mathematics, reading and science, across 65 countries in 2012) or PIRLS (Year-5 tests of mathematics, reading and science, across 57 countries in 2011). Indeed, within most school systems there is a plethora of achievement tests; many countries have introduced accountability pressures based on high levels of testing of achievement; and communities typically value high achievement or levels of knowledge. 3 The mantra underpinning these claims has been cast in terms of what students know and are able to do; the curriculum is compartmentalised into various disciplines of achievement; and students, teachers, parents and policy makers talk in terms of success in these achievement domains.Despite the recent emphasis on achievement, the day-to-day focus of schools has always been on learning-how to know, how to know more efficiently a...

A number of studies have recently demonstrated a high level of belief in ‘neuromyths’ (fallacious arguments about the brain) amongst trainee and non-award winning educators. The authors of these studies infer this to mean that acceptance of these neuromyths has a negative impact on teaching effectiveness. In this study, we explored this assumption by assessing the prevalence of neuromyth acceptance amongst a group of internationally recognized, award-winning teachers and comparing this to previously published data with trainee and non-award winning teacher populations. Results revealed the acceptance of neuromyths to be nearly identical between these two groups, with the only difference occurring on 2 (out of 15) items. These findings suggest that one cannot make simple, unqualified arguments concerning the relationship between belief in neuromyths and teacher effectiveness. In fact, the idea that neuromyths negatively impact upon teaching might, itself, be a neuromyth.

In Education and the Brain: A Bridge Too Far, John Bruer argues that, although current neuroscientific findings must filter through cognitive psychology in order to be applicable to the classroom, with increased knowledge the neuroscience/education bridge can someday be built. Here, we suggest that translation cannot be understood as a single process: rather, we demonstrate that at least four different ‘bridges’ can conceivably be built between these two fields. Following this, we demonstrate that, far from being a matter of information lack, a prescriptive neuroscience/education bridge (the one most relevant to Bruer’s argument) is a practical and philosophical impossibility due to incommensurability between non-adjacent compositional levels-of-organization: a limitation inherent in all sciences. After defining this concept in the context of biology, we apply this concept to the learning sciences and demonstrate why all brain research must be behaviorally translated before prescriptive educational applicability can be elucidated. We conclude by exploring examples of how explicating different forms of translation and adopting a levels-of-organization framework can be used to contextualize and beneficially guide research and practice across all learning sciences.

No abstract

This article outlines a meta-analysis of the 10 learning techniques identified in Dunlosky et al. (2013a), and is based on 242 studies, 1,619 effects, 169,179 unique participants, with an overall mean of 0.56. The most effective techniques are Distributed Practice and Practice Testing and the least effective (but still with relatively high effects) are Underlining and Summarization. A major limitation was that the majority of studies in the meta-analysis were based on surface or factual outcomes, and there is caution needed when applying these findings to deeper and more relational outcomes. Other important moderators included the presence of feedback or not, near or far transfer, and the effects were much greater for lower than higher ability students. It is recommended that more attention be paid to when, under what conditions, each technique can be used, and how they can best be taught.

The aim of this paper is to provide a number of reasoned and evidence-supported arguments and a list of recommendations for reducing the impact of academic rejection. A brief literature review examined the prevalence and negative impacts of academic rejection including its purported purposes, predictors, and consequences. Findings revealed that the topic of academic rejection is largely under-studied, with very few empirical investigations. The extant literature typically places the onus on the individual academic to deal with rejection. Few articles have recommended institutional changes to ameliorate the known mental health impacts of rejection. We propose that the discovery and dissemination of knowledge are among the core purposes of academia, and that scholars are far more likely to contribute through institutional and systemic support. Several elements of the current approaches are contraindicated, thus, we recommend several changes, at both the individual and institutional levels to reduce opportunity costs for grants and funding, improve the publication process, and promote academics’ mental health and wellbeing. When examining academic rejection through the lens of effective learning, the vast literature of feedback can support important changes to how publications are accepted and rejected. Considering the limited literature pertaining to academic rejection, we present recommendations for changes in how academic performance can be evaluated, for the benefit of both the academy and the mental health of its members.

No abstract

No abstract